1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that the defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the defendant C") was not paid the price of 42,560,571 won (the price discounted by 30% is KRW 29,792,400) under the joint and several guarantee of defendant D Co., Ltd. ("the defendant D"), so the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the price to the plaintiff.

B. As to the defendants' assertion, the defendant C asserted that since the construction contractor or F cannot issue a tax invoice, the defendant C only prepared a written order of ready-mixed with the plaintiff in the name of the defendant C for the issuance of the tax invoice, and the plaintiff also knew such circumstances, it is impossible to respond to the plaintiff's request.

In addition, Defendant D asserts that, after selling the land owned by Defendant D to F, only prepared documents after receiving a request from F to prepare bank loan documents, while not receiving the payment of the purchase price, Defendant D merely did not jointly and severally guarantee the obligation to pay back to the Plaintiff. Therefore, Defendant D’s claim cannot be complied with.

2. As long as the formation of the judgment document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the contents stated therein.

Where a dispute over the interpretation of a contract between the parties becomes an issue, the interpretation of the intention of the parties indicated in the disposal document shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, motive and background of the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the

(Supreme Court Decision 2014Da1976, 19783 Decided February 15, 2017). Comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the scambling of the instant case; (b) evidence Nos. 1 through 3; and (c) evidence Nos. 1 through 1; and (d) the testimony of witnesses G and F, the entire purport of the pleadings is as follows.